When it was announced over the weekend that Ben Affleck would play Batman, people immediately lost their damn minds. All of the sudden, it was like they had been personally betrayed or something. I don't get the outrage. What's wrong with Ben Affleck?

Okay, sure, he's made some missteps in his career (like Gigli). But he's also done some fantastic movies (Argo, The Town, Pearl Harbor, Chasing Amy... Just to name a few). He has two Oscars. I mean, okay, neither one of them is for acting; but he still has two Oscars.

Ben Affleck and Matt Damon

MARION CURTIS/STARTRAKS

So what is the issue? Because he started out as mainly a comedy actor rather than an action hero, do people think that he is not allowed to make the transition to Batman? If so, let me remind you of a few things:

1. Matt Damon, Ben Affleck's BFF, had the same acting roots, yet no one has had any problem with Matt as Jason Bourne. Sure, he's been more selective in his roles, but he's had a couple of movie duds, too. Not to mention, Ben still has one more Oscar than he does, so...

2. The first big screen Batman in modern-ish times was Michael Keeton. Let the sink in: Michael Keeton. As in Mr. Mom, Multiplicity, and Beetlejuice Michael Keeton. And he was phenomenal. No shade to Christian Bale (or Adam West) or anything, but he is still my favorite Batman of all time.

3. Batman has been played by so many men in movies. Even if you're used to Christian Bale, you had to expect his reign to end at some point. It's like James Bond or Doctor Who—many men will portray, you won't like them all equally, but you should at least watch the performance before declaring it awful and unworthy of the title. And, lezbereal for a minute here: Is it even remotely possible that Ben Affleck could be a worse Batman than Val Kilmer??? Doubtful.

0
comments:

Post a Comment

In keeping with our vow to the Mom Pledge, all comments will be moderated for tone. Any comments made outside the spirit of that Pledge or any comments made to invoke a reaction outside the scope of that Pledge will not be posted.

I had some other things planned for today's post... some lighter, fluffier, hopefully little-bit-funny things... then I found out about Judge G. Todd Baugh in Montana, and all those plans went out the window.

On Monday, Judge Baugh sentenced a pedophile... a then-49-year old teacher who two years ago raped his 14-year old student... who from the pressures brought on her by both the "relationship" and the trial killed herself in January of this year... to a month. I guess, to be more accurate, I should say that he sentenced this stain on humanity to 15 years, but then decided to give him time served for the one day the d-bag actually spent in jail and reduced the entirety of the sentence to 31 days. I'm not making this up.

What could have possibly made the judge believe that 31 days is a sufficient punishment for a teacher betraying the trust of a young girl in his care, grooming her to be a sexual partner, violating her, and then dragging this thing out until she could no longer take the emotional pressure [the sentencing was prolonged while this jerkwad underwent a three-year treatment program... which it turns out he wasn't really attending, and during that time he was supposed to be in treatment, he continued to—in violation of the terms of the program—have contact with minors and entered into a sexual relationship, resulting in him eventually getting kicked out of the program]? Well, because the child was much "older than her chronological age" and was "as much in control of the situation" as her 49-year old rapist-teacher with respect to the relationship. 'Scuse me??? She was a child. And this child was in this man's care. He was supposed to be someone she could trust. And he violated her. She was not in control. She was 14. I don't care how sexually experienced she was or was not or how much makeup she wore, he was still the adult here, he was still in a position of power, and he knew he shouldn't be touching a 14-year old girl. Period.

The "judge" was also persuaded by the rapist's pleas for leniency, because he was going to be "branded as a sex offender" for the rest of his life and has had his life ruined by the "scarlet letter of the Internet." No, buddy, your life was ruined becauseyou raped a child. You had a choice to make here which would have prevented you from being "branded as a sex offender" and having your life ruined—that choice was tonot rape a child. But you did, and under normal circumstances, with a normal judge, you should have been required to pay the consequences.

All of this slut-shaming of the victim while feeling sorry for the perpetrator eerily reminded me of CNN's coverage of the Steubenville rapists, wherein Candy Crowley, Poppy Harlow, and others harped on and on about how the guilty verdict and maximum fine would affect the poorrapists and showed not one minute of concern for the girl the "two young men" had raped. Poppy was practically on the verge of tears talking about how it was "incredibly difficult" to watch "as these two young men—who had such promising futures, star football players and very good students—literally watched as they believed their life [sic] fell apart." Seriously. She said that. And it went on and on. Contributor Paul Callan weighed in on what such a verdict meant for these 16-year olds who were crying in court and how they would be punished for the rest of their lives: "There's always that moment of just... Lives are destroyed. But in terms of what happens now, the most severe thing with these young men is being labeled as registered sex offenders. That label is now placed on them by Ohio law. That will haunt them for the rest of their lives."

Yes. That happened. That was said. Are you outraged? If you aren't, you should be.

These boys (like this teacher) will be "haunted" by the "label" of sex offender for their entire lives, because they made a conscious decision to become sex offenders. Sure, when each of these three men decided to pursue the act of raping a teenage girl, it never occurred to them that a consequence might some day be that they would be registered sex offenders... but it should have. Honestly, I would hope that the act of having sexual intercourse with someone too drunk, too unconscious, or too young to legally, knowingly, or rationally give consent should be enough of a deterrent to this kind of behavior; but for those fools who are somehow not motivated by morality and a conscience like the rest of us, I would hope that the legal system doing its job would be enough of a deterrent. For those who persist, then I'm happy we have the legal system there as a backup. At least it worked in the case of the Steubenville Rapists [I hope]. But this teacher? Where's his motivation to stop?

"Judge" Baugh said he believed the Teacher-Rapist wasn't a likely repeat offender. He had no basis for this really. I mean, the man couldn't even successfully comply with a three-year treatment program after being caught raping one of his students! So now we're just supposed to trust that he—after being given the lightest of slaps on the wrist—is supposed to prevent himself from diddling with young girls in the future? Not likely. And, I'm sure if someone was motivated to poke around a bit more, they would find that he's poked around with a lot more students than this one.

If you're curious of Judge Baugh has had anything to say since the backlash for his sentencing started, you're in luck. Turns out he totally had something to say on Tuesday:

I think that people have in mind that this was some violent, forcible, horrible rape ... It was horrible enough as it is just given her age, but it wasn't this forcible beat-up rape.

Oh.... I get it! Not one of those "legitimate rapes"? Well, I guess we can't be upset then, can we? Cuz, ya know, it's not like those rapes where you don't get beaten up at knifepoint actually count, right? Enjoy your re-election efforts this year, Braugh. Should be an interesting political season in Billings.

As for the rest of society, those possibly capable of learning, when are we going to learn to stop feeling sorry for the perpetrators and stop blaming the victims? When someone gets carjacked, you never hear, "Well, what did you expect driving around in a nice car like that on the open road where anyone could see you? You're just asking to get it taken from you at gunpoint." When a company is hit by embezzlement, no one argues, "C'mon now! It just had all that money sitting in its bank accounts! What did the company expect an employee would do??" But there are certain types of situations—those usually involving the already powerless (like rape, sexual orientation-based hate crimes, or racial/gender discrimination) where it's perfectly normal to hear the victim getting blamed rather than holding the perpetrators accountable for their actions, even by people who are themselves similarly situated as the victims. We have seen it in Poppy Harlow and Candy Crowley sympathizing with the rapists over the rape victim. We saw it when Don Lemon blamed blacks for racial discrimination perpetrated against them. We hear it when a transgendered person or a gay person who is thought of by (those with issues) as "too flamboyant" is killed or beaten.

Perhaps its because we've let the powerful dictate the treatment of the powerless for so long that the powerless have started to believe the propaganda? I'm not sure. But I do know it's time we put an end to this. Victimization is rarely (if ever) the victim's fault.

0
comments:

Post a Comment

In keeping with our vow to the Mom Pledge, all comments will be moderated for tone. Any comments made outside the spirit of that Pledge or any comments made to invoke a reaction outside the scope of that Pledge will not be posted.

Miley, Miley, Miley... WTF, girl? Honestly, there isn't much I can say about her train wreck of a performance at the VMAs Sunday night than has already been said in many many places and by many people (including myself).
So this is only partly about Miley. I want to talk about... priorities.

This afternoon, one of the pages I follow [and often share] posted this:

(W) Today's News quiz for the American public:

The phrase "MORAL OBSCENITY" is trending because:a) US Secretary of State John Kerry used it in the official statement referring to chemical weapons use against civilians in Syriab) Hundreds of mainstream media references to Miley Cyrusperforming at MTV awards yesterday.

Is the Web a mirror in which we see a real reflection of our society? If so, it ain't a pretty face

It was a good point, but I believe it was pointless. For one thing, instead of getting the serious discussion I think the post was intended to have, a huge chunk of the comments (at least, as far as I bothered to scroll through--there were a lot) were about Miley's performance. I believe that was the exact opposite of what this page intended to do. But, more than that, this page (one I normally love, mind you) and some of the commenters on this page's status whose contributions to this post I read (the ones that weren't about Miley) about how "stupid," "dumbed down," or "desensitized" people who talked about the pop tart instead of John Kerry are, need to get a grip.

You know, it's perfectly possible and even acceptable to care about mindless, mundane things like Miley Cyrus making a complete fool of herself, Robin Thicke, and the rest of us while also caring about actually important world events. Just because you don't talk about Syria... or Egypt... or the NSA... or Trayvon Martin... or the 50th Anniversary of the "I Have a Dream Speech" on your Facebook wall doesn't mean you aren't informed and don't care. And, maybe, you know, underneath all of those grains of emptiness of millions of Facebook users and bloggers going on and on about Miley Cyrus and that poor excuse for "twerking" is a serious and legitimate concern that demands attention--like one woman who commented on this status pointing out that it's not a very "Liberal" (part of the page's name) attitude to have absolutely zero concern for the very feminist issue of why women feel they need to exploit themselves in order to be relevant?

Dafuq?? I'm pretty sure Paula Patton was ready to snatch those pine cones off her head...

For myself, though, I was just enjoying mindless fun--which I'm entitled to have. I read the news often. I'm generally up on current events. I am certainly no stranger to analyzing and ranting (both on this blog and on my personal Facebook wall) about world news and national or local political issues. However, for all of my talk today about the VMAs and all my talk for the last few months about women's issues, racism, voting rights, and other issues du jour, I have not posted one thing about Syria or Egypt. Why?

Well, for me (and only for me), when it comes to my political rantings and ravings I prefer to post about things that outrage me that I feel I (or my Facebook friends) can have some control over. Can the people I know change the way they approach and view others (subconsciously often) regarding race or gender? Absolutely. Can I remind my Facebook friends and family members (especially my younger family members who may still live in a bubble where they are 100% unaware of any news that doesn't fall into the entertainment category) of how important it is to vote? Of course. Can I do a thing about a government using chemical weapons on its citizens? Probably not. I can sign all the MoveOn.org petitions in the world, but there's nothing about my behavior, my actions, or even my moral outrage that could possibly do a darn thing. And really, that's part of my internal litmus test for my Facebook page and this blog. Some of the factors I use are: (1) is it funny or cute?; (2) do I actually have any personal or professional knowledge about this subject that allows me to talk about this without sounding like a complete idiot?; (3) does it directly affect me?; (4) can we do anything about this?; (5) is it worth my breath? Those aren't everything I internally process in approximately 10 seconds before I post something, but it's a pretty good summary of where most things break down. But that's just me.

My friends all have different tests. I have some friends who have one or two topics that get their goat, and they will latch on to any and every topic related to those issues. I have other friends who (as I often do) have a large variety of topics from which to draw their internet material. And I have other friends who feel like they would rather leave the negative issues in one place and use Facebook and blogging for the silly, funny, happy, and mundane. It's our variety that makes the world go 'round. Sure, I have friends who may have been busy posting about vacations or sharing funny pictures of polar bears when I was ranting and raving about the Texas Legislature's war on women, but that doesn't mean that they had absolutely no idea what was going on. It didn't mean they didn't care. And it also didn't mean that their cute polar bear pictures were somehow a waste of time or 100% unimportant (after all, funny and cute things improve your quality of life).

When I posted a very heartfelt "Some of you have been far too silent, so please delete me if you don't care about these couple of issues that are part of the essence of me and some of the most important things I believe" plea to all of my friends on my personal Facebook page, I got responses from a lot of people saying something to the effect of, "Please don't take my silence as an indication that I don't care. I do care. I just don't use Facebook for that." And, quite honestly, I have a lot of friends who admitted in one way or another that they really didn't care about certain issues, either because something else in their lives took priority or because they completely disagreed with my view of things. Whichever of these camps some of the answers fell in, it was good litmus test for me--to what extent was I willing to be okay with remaining in the online of company of people who didn't feel certain topics worthy of discussion or who fundamentally disagreed with me about things that I found so important that I was physically ill at points over the topic? The answer actually was, "Well... it depends on the person and why s/he doesn't want to discuss that kind of topic here/whether I can respect his or her point of disagreement." But it was also a good reminder: Silence on a topic doesn't mean someone isn't paying attention.

A friend of mine always has this statement about people's struggles: It isn't a contest, and someone suffering more doesn't mean that my struggles don't exist. Similarly, just because a person focuses on something mundane and mindless doesn't mean that s/he is mundane or mindless. It doesn't mean that the important, interesting, and topical thing isn't important to him/her. But it also isn't a contest. Why can't you be outraged by Syria and Miley Cyrus "twerking" (hardly) at the same time? Are we not allowed to multi-task anymore? Doesn't the fact that I belong to a page where discussion of heavy political and global issues is the norm while ranting about Real Housewives mean that I am multi-tasking?

So my answer to the page that I briefly considered un-liking today before shrugging off this one hiccup in our otherwise stable relationship (wherein I repost 15 gazillion articles from it a day) is this:

No, the web is not a mirror in which to see a reflection on our society. It is what it is. Everyone chooses what they want to share and to what they want to contribute, and sometimes that isn't going to be the heaviest and most serious issue of the day; but it is quite presumptuous to think that just because the things that the majority choose to discuss ad nauseum aren't the things you consider important means our society is headed for a downfall. After all, isn't the fact that a country is using chemical weapons on its people while an over-indulged former Disney girl performs the ultimate cry for attention on the same weekend partial evidence that we've kinda already fallen?

0
comments:

Post a Comment

In keeping with our vow to the Mom Pledge, all comments will be moderated for tone. Any comments made outside the spirit of that Pledge or any comments made to invoke a reaction outside the scope of that Pledge will not be posted.

Just a little warning: Last night's VMAs provided me with such good raw material that I might end up riding this train all the way to the end of my "31 Write Now" challenge. That being said, let's get to our first subject: Taylor Swift.

Oh, Taylor!

Taylor Swift looked so beautiful last night at last night's VMAs. When Pop Culture Dad and I saw her being interviewed on the red carpet, at first we didn't even know who she was. Miss Swift has certainly grown up nicely. Or so we thought...

Barely 10 minutes into the show, One Direction took the stage for the first time. Insert Taylor's first recorded f-bomb of the night. One of many, it seemed. Throughout the night, you could see gorgeous, grown up-looking Taylor whispering to her bestie, Selena Gomez, some version of "f*** you," "f*** off," or "shut the f*** up" EVERY TIME One Direction (and ex-Harry Styles) took the stage. Pop Culture Dad mentioned it after the first time: "Didn't that look like Taylor Swift just said, 'F*** you"? Why is she saying that? Is it to Selena Gomez?? Why?". That's when I had to explain the One Direction connection to him. Pop Culture Dad was as instantly confused as anyone with any sense of rationality should be, "I mean, did they date a long time? How many guys has she dated since then? Did they just break up or something?" Exxxxxxxxxactly. And, if the F-bombs weren't enough, when Taylor accepted her award for the video for "I Knew You Were Trouble," she decided to give a virtual f-you to the man who inspired the song who "knew who" he is [which is pretty odd, since according to many sources, the song could easily be about one of three guys, even though the most likely and most famously suspected source is the fabulous Mr. Gyllenhaal... see more on this below].

Along with Miley's awful "twerking" <snort> incident (more on that tomorrow), Taylor Swift's rage was a hot topic of conversation this morning. Nicole on the Morning Mashup asked, "How long exactly should you still be bitter? A couple of months, maybe?" My answer to Nicole (via Twitter) was, "You're right about Taylor Swift's window. You should never be bitter longer than the relationship lasted!!! She has issues." That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Taylor Swift and Harry Styles started dating in late-November/early-December 2012. They broke up in early January 2013. Are you doing the math here? That's approximately less than two months (depending on how early their courtship really began). Sure, they'd been on a couple of dates in the year prior to that, which apparently didn't go anywhere and had no lasting affect on Taylor (as evidenced by the lack of songs about Harry Stiles), but for all intents and purposes, their "relationship" was that two-month period. And, more math here, that was more than seven months ago. Let me break this down: Taylor Swift has been bitter about her breakup with Harry Styles more than three times as long as the relationship lasted. That ain't right.

Not only that, but Taylor has dated since then. I mean, not that I guess that means anything.

Honestly, I don't know why I'm surprised she's still raging after only a couple of months with some guy. In Taylorland, the majority of hunnies don't seem to last very long as it is—but most seem to be around just long enough to get a song (or three) out of her. Billboard.com has put together a list of some of Taylor's loves (rumored and confirmed) and the songs it suspects are attributable to these very short relationships [others have been supplemented from a Taylor Swift ex-love Wiki]:

Brandon Borello (? to ?) is the man behind "Tim McGraw." This one was a sweet memoir of a past relationship, because young Taylor had not yet learned the bitter way of the worlds. Also, dear Brandon was only going to college, not dumping her because she was cray cray, so why do more than "something to remember her by"?

Unamed-"Redneck"-Who-Wouldn't-Let-Her-Drive-His-Pickup-Truck (? to ?) is the inspiration behind "Picture to Burn." Let the bitterness begin!

Sam Armstrong (? to ?) was the guy to whom she "dedicates" "Should've Said No," and Taylor made it so clear that every time an S, A, or M appears in that order in the CD booklet, it was capitalized to spell out his name. Uh-oh, girl... We're getting a little crazy now.

Joe Jonas (July 2008 - October 2008) inspired "Last Kiss" and "Forever and Always" (later she made nice with "Holy Ground"... guess she got over him? Well... Until she wrote "Better than Revenge" about his ex-girlfriend, Camila Belle. Damn girl! Put the claws back in.

Lucas Till (March 2009 - April 2009) managed to escape the song curse. I guess one undramatic month doesn't provide enough song material?

Taylor Lautner (August 2009 - December 2009) — "Back to December," an apology for dumping him (guess there's a better treatment when the breakup is her idea?)

John Mayer (December 2009 - February 2010) is the guy for which "Dear John" ("Don't you think I was too young to be messed with." Uh... isn't that your call, too, honey?) was written. There's also some speculation that "I Knew You Were Trouble" (see also Jake Gyllenhaal and Harry Styles) may be about him

Cory Monteith (suspected April 2010 to May 2010) is thought to be the guy behind "Mine" (even though he was, if the unconfirmed rumors were true, not even hers for very long)

Jake Gyllenhaal (October 2010 to January 2011) apparently provided an entire album for Taylor in their very brief time together: "The Last Time," "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together," "State of Grace," "All Too Well," "Girl at Home," "The Moment I Knew," and "I Knew You Were Trouble" (in fact, the VMA she received for "Trouble" last night was dedicated to him)

Conor Kennedy (July 2012 - October 2012) "Begin Again"

Harry Styles (November/December 2012 - January 2013) - none as of yet, though there has also been speculation that "I Knew You Were Trouble" is about him.

None of these relationships even lasted a year. I mean, the girl is 23 now. Isn't the time for high school obsession and infatuations to be over? Just because she dates teenagers doesn't mean she needs to still act like one. Or, as one wise person pointed out, maybe her next song should be called, "Maybe I'm the Problem?"

0
comments:

Post a Comment

In keeping with our vow to the Mom Pledge, all comments will be moderated for tone. Any comments made outside the spirit of that Pledge or any comments made to invoke a reaction outside the scope of that Pledge will not be posted.

"Ma'am, that'll be 269--," the cashier started to tell me. "Wait! We're not done yet!" I interrupted, and I handed her my phone. The register verified that I had saved $10.41. Then I swiped my debit card, and my total bill went down to around $240. Not bad for two seconds work. What's my magic trick? Cartwheel and a Target debit card.

Cartwheel is a new app by Target. The basic concept is social couponing. You login to Cartwheel with your Facebook account, and you are instantly connected with everyone on your friend list who has downloaded the Cartwheel app. You see what they're saving, they see what you're saving, and you can choose to save on the same deals. You earn badges based on your savings and your friends' savings, and those "badges" result in more open slots for you to select coupons.

Unlike the Target Mobile coupons that get text messaged to you every week, these coupons are totally customizable. You can go through the extensive list of coupons and select what you what. My strategy is to go to Target with an empty Cartwheel and search for the items I'm purchasing. If my selection comes down to a choice between brands, I usually select whatever has a coupon. Since I shop first and save later, my savings usually end up larger than they do when I simply clip any and all coupons, because I'm truly only finding savings for things I want to buy (much like when I use Ebates), not changing my shopping habits by using coupons to subconsciously influence me to buy something for which I wasn't actually in the market. Also, unlike the Target Mobile coupons, once you use the Cartwheel coupons, they do not go away until either you physically remove them or the expiration date. Also, you can use the coupons multiple times for the same instance of an item. The Cartwheel coupons can be used in conjunction with sales and other coupons and the 5% discount you get for using a Target Visa or debit card.

Here's an example of some of the things that went into the $10.41 I saved today:

I bought four packs of the Up and Up crayons that were on sale for $0.25

We needed more potty rewards, so I searched for an M&Ms coupon--and found one. Turned out Twin Mom had already redeemed one:

I searched for Shout cleaner and found a coupon for the spray. Lovely surprise, turns out the Cartwheel coupon extended to the boxes of Shout Color Catches I purchased also. Huzzah!

Cartwheel has seriously changed my life. I'm already a Target over-shopper, and I'm prone to forgetting my coupons. Even though I'm still weekly spending a fortune at Target, the fact that I can shop for all of the kiddie birthdays we attend and find (every week so far!) coupons for the present, the card, and the gift wrap and bag, makes me giddy with joy! I have to buy these things anyway, might as well save!

0
comments:

Post a Comment

In keeping with our vow to the Mom Pledge, all comments will be moderated for tone. Any comments made outside the spirit of that Pledge or any comments made to invoke a reaction outside the scope of that Pledge will not be posted.

As you have probably heard, yesterday Wentworth Miller told the St. Petersburg International Film Festival [I'm paraphrasing here]: "Thanks but no thanks for your invitation to appear at your festival, but as long as your country is oppressing gay people like me, you can go f*** yourselves." And people, gay and straight alike, lost their damn minds.

I was (and still am) perplexed. I mean, didn't everyone know he's gay by now? I thought that closet door had long been open and shut behind him. He didn't have some huge coming out cover story on People or anything, but most people don't. He's never tried to lie about his sexual orientation and never had a beard. Heck, I remember having this discussion with some women in my former mommy group four years ago. And that discussion revealed another thing those women apparently didn't know about Wentworth Miller (and I found a lot of people were as in the dark as they were).

So here are two facts that I have known about Wentworth Miller since his Prison Break days (even though I never watched that show; I only admired his beautiful face and body), and which I have wrongly assumed everyone knew:

1. Wentworth Miller is gay.

Here's a picture with his boyfriend (actor Luke MacFarlane) from 2007 described back then in an article as him coming out.

2. Wentworth Miller is black (well, half-black).1

An old yearbook picture of WM with hair

El Hottie with his uncle and father

Bam! Minds blown.

Well, unless you were paying attention the past few years, in which case, this is all duuuuuuuuh!

0
comments:

Post a Comment

In keeping with our vow to the Mom Pledge, all comments will be moderated for tone. Any comments made outside the spirit of that Pledge or any comments made to invoke a reaction outside the scope of that Pledge will not be posted.

I was listening to a replay of an earlier episode of Lance Bass's Dirty Pop the other day, and Lance and his co-hosts were talking about the Tennessee judge who changed a child's name from "Messiah" to "Martin." This topic lead into a discussion of weird baby names people have heard, and several people called in with some whoppers. And when I mean whoppers, I mean these were outright lies.

What is it about you teachers and nurses (the biggest offenders) that you apparently think your job isn't interest enough on its own that you have to make up names of students? I'm not saying teachers and nurses don't have interesting jobs. In fact, most of the teachers and nurses I know have much better war stories (assuming any of them are true) than pretty much any other profession I've met. But either you people are so greedy that you want to have a lock on "In addition to all the crazy stories I can tell you about my day, let me tell you this name I heard!" or you for some reason think that the rest of the world finds your job so boring that you're just making up stuff. Either that, or you're pathological liars. I dunno. But nearly everyone of these obviously fake "baby names" that are easily debunked by anyone who wants to spend 10 seconds on Google come from a nurse, a teacher, or a person who heard the name from a nurse or teacher. Heck, even my own mother used to make up these, "There's a child at my school named [insert name that's never appeared in the U.S. birth records ever]. Her mom is so uneducated she didn't know what it meant!"

So what were the baby names (and how they were pronounced) reported by teachers, nurses, and friends of teachers/nurses to the Dirty Pop crew? Shithead (shah-threed), La-a (lah-dash-ah), twins named Lemonjello and Orangejello (lu-mon-jah-lo and oh-ron-jah-lo), Placenta (play-ceen-tah), and Meconium (mek-oh-nam). Seriously?! Not only have everybody and their grandmothersheard these urban legend child names before, but Snopes has debunked Every. Single. One. Of. Them. The only name missing from this "common urban legend" list was Female (fem-uh-lee; rhymes with "Emily").

There were a couple of reported names that were probably real, like Dick Wiener (Richard Wiener is easy to believe. Not to mention, there was once a mayor in Indiana named Harry Baals, and the "First Lady" of my home state of Texas was named Ima Hogg). And there was at least one name that I completely called bullshit on, which turns out is actually real... because people suck [that name, in case you were wondering is Abcde (ab-sa-duh), which, while apparently a real name, is claimed to belong to someone actually known to the reporter more often than the vital records would support. That's just lazy, people! (and stupid)].

Overwhelmingly, though, these names were clearly and lazily made up. Just the fact that Snopes has two articles on them, and I've heard no less than a dozen comedy routines using a number of these names is proof positive that people need to find new material. If you're going to make things up, at least be original! Though, really, I would prefer people just didn't make these things up. There are enough people in the world with unbelievably horrible names because of their parents' stupidity, that you really shouldn't even need to make up names. Not to mention, as the Snopes writer points out, many of these names have their origins in racism. Even if these urban legends aren't thought of as racist in today's times, they are, at best, classist. Personally, I don't find it particularly amusing to make fun of people because they are poor and have low education.

Now, a note about Messiah:
Look, it's no secret that I loathe kr8v names. But that judge was way over the line. In addition to the complete overstepping of her bounds [the only issue before her was the baby's last name, not his first], her reasoning for the name change really bothers me. "There's only one Messiah" smacks the legal system stepping its bounds into religion. Since the government shall establish no religion, and there's only one religion that believes there has been the one Messiah, it sure looks like that judge was establishing a religion in violation of the First Amendment. I don't foresee this withstanding appeal. I'm not a fan of naming a kid Messiah, but that wasn't this judge's call to make.

1 comments:

Post a Comment

In keeping with our vow to the Mom Pledge, all comments will be moderated for tone. Any comments made outside the spirit of that Pledge or any comments made to invoke a reaction outside the scope of that Pledge will not be posted.

First thought just rampant speculation and silly rumor, it is apparently now all but officially confirmed that a gold (but not a tacky gold, mind you, "more of a champagne color") phone will be the new edition to the iPhone line when Apple makes its announcement next month. And I could truly care less.

Okay, I get that the gold color is more for the Chinese market than the American, so "gold iPhone" isn't really for us. And I get that every other year, Apple doesn't make any major improvements to its phone line, it simply adds an "S" to the model number [for "Seriously no different"?], changes a couple of things around, and expects (justifiably, it seems) for millions of iPhone owners to ditch their phones and camp out overnight waiting to be the first to get the new ones. I will not be one of those people.

I love my iOS devices. I carry both my iPhone and iPad everywhere. I now even take all of my meeting notes on my iPad. But I've never bought into the fangirl-like crazy that surrounds the iDevices. I used to be a technogeek who wanted everything first. Then I grew up. Now it's about utility and common sense.

I skipped the iPhone 5. Other than a better camera, there wasn't much available on that version that I didn't get on my iPhone 4 with a simple iOS upgrade. Yes, there is the new port, but that was more of a con than a pro. Had Apple changed to a universal plug like every freaking other phone maker on the planet, that would have been a draw. But noooooo, always one to be different, Apple simply changed to its own tiny, non-interchangeable port, which would make every plug, dock, stand, and radio I own obsolete. No thank you.

So now there's a new phone. And you can get it in gold. Whoopdefreakingdo.

There's a possibility that the 5s may have fingerprint technology to keep your files safe. Unlike the gold, this feature is purely conjecture based on Apple's purchase of the security firm AuthenTec back in 2012.

One confirmed feature is that the new phone will be equipped with iOS 7; but, like every iOS release since the beginning of iPhone time, the operating system will also be available on every earlier model (with some feature limitations on the older models).

So... Basically... Gold. That's what you're getting with the latest iPhone that's different from its last incarnation.

Of course, I'll have to wait until the official September 10 announcement to completely pass judgment; but since CNet and other tech bloggers have rarely steered me wrong before, I'm not generally expecting much different.

0
comments:

Post a Comment

In keeping with our vow to the Mom Pledge, all comments will be moderated for tone. Any comments made outside the spirit of that Pledge or any comments made to invoke a reaction outside the scope of that Pledge will not be posted.

0
comments:

Post a Comment

In keeping with our vow to the Mom Pledge, all comments will be moderated for tone. Any comments made outside the spirit of that Pledge or any comments made to invoke a reaction outside the scope of that Pledge will not be posted.

On this day in 1920, women received the right to vote. But some of you still don't do it. Why? Because you hate politics? That's a dumb "reason."

And yet still others of you vote exactly how your husbands or fathers tell you, without any independent thought or research on your own... or even if you DO research, you still defer to the opinions of some man because you assume he knows better or because you don't want to "rock the boat." Once again, dumb.

We have this right. We should exercise this right… wisely. That means do your own research [whether you like politics or not is irrelevant] and vote your own economic, social, and other self-interests. Demand that your elected officials (whether or not the person you voted for) be held to a high standard. Don't let anyone tell you how you should vote—not your father, not your husband, not your best friend, not some pundit, and not some blogger.

0
comments:

Post a Comment

In keeping with our vow to the Mom Pledge, all comments will be moderated for tone. Any comments made outside the spirit of that Pledge or any comments made to invoke a reaction outside the scope of that Pledge will not be posted.

You may have heard about the now-viral speech Ashton Kutcher gave at the Teen Choice Awards last week. You probably ignored it, as I did originally, because who in the world can take someone from Two and a Half Men, who wears a flannel over-shirt to accept his "Ultimate Choice Award" seriously? But you shouldn't ignore it. And if you have a teenager in your life, you should pass on some variant of this advice.

Ashton Kutcher at Teen Choice Awards (Getty Images)

Ashton started his acceptance speech for the "old person award" by admitting, "I feel like a fraud." He then revealed to the (apparently non-Googling, Wikipedia-stupid) audience that his real name is Chris. Ashton is his middle name, but he changed his name at 19 when he started acting. Ashton/Chris then launched into his list of "Amazing Things I Learned When I Was Chris." The list was comprised of three categories:

1. opportunity

2. being sexy

3. living life

On Opportunity: "I believe that opportunity looks a lot like hard work.... I never had a job in my life that I was better than. I was always thankful just to have a job."

On Being Sexy: "The sexiest thing in the entire world is being really smart... and being thoughtful... and being generous. Everything else is crap--I promise you."

On Living Life: Taking a page from lessons he re-learned while making "Jobs": "[L]ife can be a lot broader than that [learning to live in the world exactly as it is] when you realize one simple thing, and that is that everything around us that we call 'life' was made up by people that are no smarter than you, and you can build your own thing. You can build your own life that other people can live in. So build a life. Don't live one, build one... find your opportunities, and always be sexy."

0
comments:

Post a Comment

In keeping with our vow to the Mom Pledge, all comments will be moderated for tone. Any comments made outside the spirit of that Pledge or any comments made to invoke a reaction outside the scope of that Pledge will not be posted.

0
comments:

Post a Comment

In keeping with our vow to the Mom Pledge, all comments will be moderated for tone. Any comments made outside the spirit of that Pledge or any comments made to invoke a reaction outside the scope of that Pledge will not be posted.

This afternoon, I received an e-mail from a collections agency, containing a PDF of a delinquent account settlement offer. The offer wasn't for me and wasn't related to one of my accounts. The e-mail and letter were addressed to a woman with the same last name as me and a first name starting with the same letter, but otherwise wasn't anywhere close to my name. I assume this company found my e-mail address by randomly sending e-mails to any vague Gmail account with the last name, which looked like it might be hers. Or, perhaps, her original creditor had her correct e-mail address but left off numbers or other identifying characteristics when transferring this information to the collections agency.

This is not the first time I've received e-mail intended for another C. [Last Name]. In fact, I am now connected on LinkedIn with another person who has the same first initial and last name as me, because I was getting so much of his e-mail, that I finally had to do some Google searching until I found a valid e-mail address for him and implored him to please remember to add the "70" when entering his e-mail address on forms, because I was really tired of getting his magazine subscription info, house listing updates [he is a realtor, which is how I found him], and lunch invites from friends. The whole mix up was pretty funny, and it's kind of an odd way to meet someone with an overlapping industry and possibly distant cousin relationship [he certainly looks like enough of my family members for it to be possible]--even though it was really annoying at first.

I haven't had as much luck with the other C. [Last Name]s who have accidentally (or on purpose?) directed their e-mails to me. There is one woman in particular, who apparently lives in California, who especially irks me in this regard. I suspect she just doesn't actually know her e-mail address. From all of the correspondence I have received for her--from AARP, from Match.com (that was the worst!!!), from friends from her former church, from the volunteer center when she apparently worked on Hillary Clinton's local campaign efforts in 2008, from the... iCan't...--I know she's a woman in her early 60s, so I'm guessing she's just not 100% caught up on her technology? [my parents, for example, can read and post on Facebook, but ask them to change their security settings or even their names, and you get blank stares] I actually now know a lot about this woman, but have yet to find enough to track her down to tell her to Stop. Giving. Out. My. E-mail. Address. I've actually responded very sweetly to the people who actually seem to know her (including the Clinton campaign) and asked them to pass the message along. Some of them have even confirmed that they have. However, she continues to give out my e-mail address, and every three months or so, I get a new e-mail directed intended for Constance from California [stop it girl, stop it!].

But I digress...

This is the first time I've gotten highly sensitive information for another person. This PDF attached to the e-mail had this lady's name, her address, her creditor, and her partial account info [in fact, instead of the lastfour digits, like creditors are generally supposed to use, they included all but the last four, which meant if I wanted to, I could easily get this woman's entire account number. I don't want to.]. Instead of my usual annoyance at the misdirected e-mail, I just got nervous. So I fired off this response to the collection agency:

This isn't [NAME REDACTED]. I don't even know anyone by that name. Heck, I don't know anyone who lives in [LOCALE REDATED]. I would suggest that you try her at whatever address and phone number you have on file. I will delete the correspondence so as to not be held legally liable for retaining any of her private information, and I'm sure you would not want to be held in violation of any consumer privacy laws.

In the future, you may want to password protect such e-mails with identifiable account information with the last four digits of the person's social security number.... << This is just a suggestion and should not constitute or be construed to constitute legal advice.

Please remove me from your e-mail list.

A minute or so after sending the e-mail, it dawned on me—Daaaaaaaamn. I am such a lawyer.

1 comments:

Post a Comment

In keeping with our vow to the Mom Pledge, all comments will be moderated for tone. Any comments made outside the spirit of that Pledge or any comments made to invoke a reaction outside the scope of that Pledge will not be posted.

If you haven't seen Mean Girls, you are seriously missing out. It is a fun cult-classic in the vein of Clueless, Bring It On, Pitch Perfect, and every other movie you pretend you've never seen and don't like [well, not me, because I'm shameless], but from which you secretly can quote no less than 10 lines.

My evening was totally made (and life was GIVEN) when I caught wind of this tweet from the WhiteHouse today:

0
comments:

Post a Comment

In keeping with our vow to the Mom Pledge, all comments will be moderated for tone. Any comments made outside the spirit of that Pledge or any comments made to invoke a reaction outside the scope of that Pledge will not be posted.

Little Diva had The Going To Bed Book memorized before she was two. Super Girl learned some of her animal sounds from Moo Baa La La La. There are few things she likes better than watching all the Hippos Go Beserk! At some point, I had a Boynton Mom's Family Desk Planner. And who doesn't love a BEE-BO (a tiny hippo's way of saying "Belly Button" [Book]) or a good Barnyard Dance? We are truly the house that Boynton built. That being said... I'm afraid I've ruined my child.

The Going to Bed Book is a staple in the Pop Culture household. When Little Diva was approximately the same age Super Girl is now, we had read the book so many times that she had the book memorized, page by page, line by line. I had hoped for the same thing for Super Girl. But I took a wrong turn at some point... I downloaded the interactive app.

Let me say, I stalked this app until it finally came out. Really, all I had hoped for was a version of the book that could read itself, like the version Pop Culture Dad has on his Nook Color; but what we ended up with is so much more. So much better. Every single page is interactive, and every time we open the interactive book, we discover a new feature we hadn't seen before.

The pages are generally the same, minus some subtle differences.

This is a page from the book

This is the same page in the app.

Notice they are identical except the faucet. On the left page of the app, you can open and close the window, and the animals move on the stairs. They also make sounds. On the right side, the animals soap up. You can also turn the faucet on and off, and when it is on, bubbles fly out of the tub, which you can pop. This is the page we were reading (in the actual book) last night when I discovered I have messed up my kid.

At some point, our board book was (temporarily) lost, which meant all we had was the app. The app then became the norm. And I guess Super Girl is also still too young to comprehend the difference between the two things. Or at least I'm guessing that's the problem... because last night... while reading the book… Super Girl tried to move the animals down the stairs. And close the window. And turn on the faucet. And scrub the elephant. In. The. Book. I laughed at first, because the whole thing was really cute. But the poor girl was confused and frustrated. She threw up her hands and declared (over and over), "It not working!!!".

I guess I really should have thought this through better. Once you go app, you never go back.

0
comments:

Post a Comment

In keeping with our vow to the Mom Pledge, all comments will be moderated for tone. Any comments made outside the spirit of that Pledge or any comments made to invoke a reaction outside the scope of that Pledge will not be posted.

Apparently, there has been a lot of not-so-academic debate going on about what the true song of the summer of 2013 is. The head-to-head competition is between Daft Punk ("Get Lucky") and Robin Thicke ("Blurred Lines"). Although the side one chooses is generally determined by the genre of music one prefers [sorry, you're not going to find a single R&B fan who picks Daft Punk over Sir Robin; and you're not likely to find an alternative-lover who picks hip-hop heavy "Blurred Lines" over funky "Get Lucky"], in the end, I don't think it even matters. Because you know what these songs have in common? Pharrell Williams. Honestly, regardless of which song ends up being the Song of the Summer of 2013, one thing is clear: Pharrell is the Man of the Summer--correction, THE Man. Period.

Pharrell is always busy, it seems. But if you look at his Wikipedia entry [or, you know, just keep your ears open], you'll notice that he has been especially busy this summer. So busy, in fact, that on my birthday this year, he became the 12th person in the history of the Billboard Hot 100 to simultaneously hold the #1 position ("Blurred Lines") and the #2 position ("Get Lucky").

So, really, I don't care which song you think is the Song of the Summer [um... hello, "Blurred Lines"]. Considering the very heavy Pharrell influence, if you like one, you really should like both. I know I love them both. And so do my girls.

And in case you've been living under a rock, here's your quick education...

"Get Lucky":

Stephen Colbert Getting Lucky:

"Blurred Lines" [the more "SFW" version]:

And an even more kid-friendly (my kids' favorite) version of "Blurred Lines":

For more Pharrell education and a gratuitous inclusion of Minions, here are the final credits from Despicable Me [in the spirit of full disclosure, I should mention that this song, too, is Robin Thicke...]:

1 comments:

Post a Comment

In keeping with our vow to the Mom Pledge, all comments will be moderated for tone. Any comments made outside the spirit of that Pledge or any comments made to invoke a reaction outside the scope of that Pledge will not be posted.

It has been increasingly hard to buy good gifts for Pop Culture Dad. We pretty much buy things as we want them, save for really large purchases, and we've been trying to scale back on the over-the-top gifts the last couple of years. He doesn't maintain a wish list and doesn't have very many hobbies, and there's only so much St. Louis Cardinals stuff you can buy before it gets really duplicative. After giving a birthday present this year that did not receive a very enthusiastic response, I had to think really hard to come up with a present that Pop Culture Dad actually wanted, but that wasn't overly practical. Enter the Roku.

Pop Culture Dad had mentioned several times that the Roku or something similar might be a good purchase. We have two Blu Ray players with internet connection and one is connected to an internet-ready TV. Add the various tablets and smart phones, and it didn't seem like we really needed another internet-content player for the television. But we have one oft-used television without any internet content, and it looked like the Roku also traveled easily, so I went ahead and bought it. The gift went over like gangbusters. It probably didn't hurt that there is a lot of sports content.

Fast forward to today. Super Girl has been sick within ear infection and 102-degree fever for the last three days. Since today was my ETR day, it was my turn to stay home with her. There are only a few summer programs worth watching, and we've pretty much cleaned out all of the shows on the DVR that aren't for the kids. I was hoping to fold some laundry upstairs while caring for my little patient, but i needed to keep us entertained, so enter the Roku.

I watched a couple of shows and then we dozed off on the couch.... And when I woke up, the itty bitty Roku remote was nowhere to be found. I swear I looked everywhere logical, but it was just gone. On a whim, I went to iTunes to look for a Roku remote app. Sure enough, there was one!

And the app was free!

Not only did it control the Roku like a remote, but it had options to download more channels and—my favorite feature of all—"Play on Roku," which allows me to send the music, videos, and pictures on my iPhone or iPad directly to the television through the Roku.

This is Super Girl's favorite feature too. She had me play the video of her at the circus, watching the elephants and dancing, at least 30 times today.

The video on my app

Super Girl watching herself on TV watching the elephants... for the 20th time

Despite the two Blu Ray players, Pop Culture Dad had been talking about getting a Chrome TV to stream our phone content to the television [he refuses to buy anything with iOS, so an Apple TV is out]. Now that we each have the Roku app (it is on Android also), looks like we won't need that. Huzzah!

0
comments:

Post a Comment

In keeping with our vow to the Mom Pledge, all comments will be moderated for tone. Any comments made outside the spirit of that Pledge or any comments made to invoke a reaction outside the scope of that Pledge will not be posted.

This week, I was listening to Lance Bass' "Dirty Pop" on my way home [Sirius/XM OutQ 109]. I don't remember the celebrity or the topic that started the train of thought, but Lance and his co-hosts opined that society has become less forgiving of celebrities when they screw up, and they believed the rise of social media has a lot to do with that. I completely disagree.

According to the Dirty Pop Crew, thanks to celebrity and media over-saturation, now when we see a Lindsay Lohan or Paula Deen type, once they've messed up, we as a society get tired of hearing from them and want nothing to do with them. While I know I personally feel that way (and social media has little to do with it), that doesn't seem to be the trend of celebrities in general.

Take Chris Brown for example. What the heck does this douchebag have to do in order for people to ask for him to disappear?? He nearly beat his girlfriend within an inch of her life [and, if you read the police report, it sounds like exactly what he was trying to do was kill her]. He barely showed any remorse for it, only instead giving interviews saying he was sorry if he disappointed his fans [that "I'm sorry if you think I should feel sorry for something" fake apology is the worst ever, and no rational person should ever fall for that!!] but then going on to have harsh words for his "haters," because he was a "child of God," so the rest of us could suck it. From that he has had several instances where he goes on Twitter tirades until his publicist or someone makes him delete his hateful tweets. And then, if all of that wasn't bad enough on its own, the guy has an interview with Robin Roberts—fresh out of chemo—where afterwards he was so mad at her (and called her a few choice words) that he punched a mirror and threw a heavy chair out of a window and onto the street below. He never even tried to do a real or "I'm sorry you think I should feel sorry" apology for that either. But did people cut off Chris Brown? Did they ostracize him from the community of celebrities? Was his brand tarnished in the least? Nope. Not by his fans. Heck, shortly after he beat the crap out of Rihanna, some newlyweds became internet sensations for a YouTube video of their entire wedding party dancing down the aisle to "Forever." That song is still used as an anthem for damn-near everything fun and celebratory. Chris Brown's misguided fans continue to support him and all of his temper tantrums, and buy the line of horseshit he constantly tries to sell, painting himself as a victim. In fact, his popularity is at such an all-time high that it is apparently up to Chris Brown and Chris Brown alone to decide when it is time for him to quit... maybe. Chris Brown announced on Twitter this week that after his next album comes out this fall he is quitting music, because he's tired of being famous for a "mistake" he made as a teenager rather than his music. Gee... that's funny... Because from where I'm sitting, the only people who still focus on his "mistake" [seriously, I'm just angry he has the nerve to be dismissive like that] are those of us who didn't give two craps about his music in the first place. Sure, before he revealed himself to be a jerkwad of ginormous proportions, I liked his music just fine. But there is NO performer good enough to make me overlook these kind of issues. I do have some morals, you know. In my household, the TV or radio is changed when he comes on. Sometimes I feel like I'm alone in my continued punishment of not-so-sorry sorry celebrities. But then something wonderful happens, like when Zynga stupidly tried to feature the phrase "Chris Brown" in its Daily Draw. The result was a lot of pictures of Rihanna's bruised and battered face accompanied with statements that people needed to remember what this stain on humanity has really done with his life and realize why he should not be honored. My drawing skills skew more cartoon-oriented than life-like portrait-oriented, so my protest went thus:

Chris Brown isn't the only celebrity who has gotten a pass on bad behavior. Sure, we're sick of Lindsay Lohan now, but how many years of bad behavior did it take before we got there? Ten? I can't even keep track anymore. And, really, it's disingenuous to say that "we're" sick of her. Obviously, someone still likes hearing about Lindsay Lohan, or I wouldn't even know that she left rehab last week.

Paula Deen's restaurant had a line out the door and around the block the week after details of her racism [no, not just 38 years ago, dolts!] emerged and after her four attempts at her bogus "I'm sorry if you felt offended" "apology." Of course, the people waiting for hours and hours to go into her restaurant were probably also just racists and bigots who don't think they're racist and bigots [much like the people who lined up to line the corporate pockets of Chick-Fil-A in honor of its Hate Crime, er, CFA Appreciation Day don't think they're bigots... but they are]. But the fact is, while Paula Deen lost several endorsements and fans that month, she also gained just as many. In fact, despite being universally cut off from all of her former sponsors, many of them have announced recently that they're going to take her back. No, she hasn't done anything new or special to indicate she truly knows what a horrible person she was (is) and wants to change it. In fact, new allegations have since come out about how she asked black women working for her to dress like Aunt Jemima. The fact is, Twitter and Facebook have moved on, so now all of the corporate sponsors who threw up mock outrage (which, I'll admit, looked real at the time) in June, now feel perfectly safe fully supporting someone they allegedly found so distasteful not even two months ago.Yes, Black Twitter made a mockery of her with the awesomely funny #PaulasBestDishes hashtag... but no one else seemed to care because she "had been punished enough" or "it's old already."

Anthony Weiner... Do you remember the days when disgraced politicians would disappear and never come back? Or at least they'd disappear for a long enough time and re-emerge as so awesome of a character that you almost totally forgot what it was that they had done? Apparently, those days are gone. Twitter (or, rather, his inability to use good judgment on Twitter) did take him down. But... he popped back up... Same horndog, a-hole he was before. No changes, and this time no apologies. Heck, he's even doubled-down on his jerkiness.

All of this is to say, while I agree with the Dirty Pop Crew that social media makes it easier to become aware of celebrities' dirty deeds and makes it easier to judge them for it, social media has not in any way created this "gone and dead forever" scenario that the DPC claims exists. Celebrities these days bounce back like one of those inflatable punching bags—you keep pushing, but even the worst of them refuse to stay down. And these days, they don't even bother with real and sincere apologies.

0
comments:

Post a Comment

In keeping with our vow to the Mom Pledge, all comments will be moderated for tone. Any comments made outside the spirit of that Pledge or any comments made to invoke a reaction outside the scope of that Pledge will not be posted.